"Little one, who straight hast come
Down the heavenly stair,
Tell us all about your home,
And the father there."
"He is such a one as I,
Like as like can be.
Do his will, and, by and by,
Home and him you'll see."
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Through Pain without Stain
Why does God allow pain, people often ask. Do we think that it is God's primary concern is to maky us happy? How about making us perfect! Our perfected souls are what brings the most glory unto Himself. If us being happy brought God the most glory, than He would do all that He possibly could to make us the happiest beings possible; but that is not how it works. When and how are people most glorified? Why, it is when they are honored, when people pay tribute to them, when they are regarded as a more worthy being.
But why does God allow pain? C.S. Lewis once said that "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world." Pain wakes us up; it allows us to see things differently; it helps us to ask life's more important questions. Most of all, it makes us more aware of the result of sin: death.
Another question may be asked at this point: why does God allow good? I came across this verse while reading Romans 2, and it brilliantly answers this question: "do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?" (emphasis mine). Pain awakens us to God; goodness is meant to lead to repentance. Both pain and pleasure are meant to lead us to God. Fancy that.
I will again quote C.S. Lewis (you can never have too much Lewis): "God, who foresaw your tribulation, has specially armed you to go through it, not without pain but without stain." Pain is a crucible, meant to present the inbiber a more complete person in Christ. Without stain, without blemish, a closer-to-perfect being on the other side. "For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil. 1:29).
Praise be to God for being wiser than us, for suffering is His method of choice to achieve perfected followers. "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing" (James 1: 2-4). May we endure pain with joyful hearts, knowing that our suffering is meant to produce in us Christ-likeness.
But why does God allow pain? C.S. Lewis once said that "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world." Pain wakes us up; it allows us to see things differently; it helps us to ask life's more important questions. Most of all, it makes us more aware of the result of sin: death.
Another question may be asked at this point: why does God allow good? I came across this verse while reading Romans 2, and it brilliantly answers this question: "do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?" (emphasis mine). Pain awakens us to God; goodness is meant to lead to repentance. Both pain and pleasure are meant to lead us to God. Fancy that.
I will again quote C.S. Lewis (you can never have too much Lewis): "God, who foresaw your tribulation, has specially armed you to go through it, not without pain but without stain." Pain is a crucible, meant to present the inbiber a more complete person in Christ. Without stain, without blemish, a closer-to-perfect being on the other side. "For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil. 1:29).
Praise be to God for being wiser than us, for suffering is His method of choice to achieve perfected followers. "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing" (James 1: 2-4). May we endure pain with joyful hearts, knowing that our suffering is meant to produce in us Christ-likeness.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
God Fully-Clawed
"Fearing God? What are you talking about? God is love!" This is the rallying cry of the misinformed Christians of our day. Since "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom," it would follow that having no fear of God would leave a person with no wisdom.
But doesn't fearing God mean being afraid of Him? Certainly not! Moses addresses the Israelites, right after delivering the ten commandments, and says, "do not be afraid; for God has come in order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may remain with you, so that you may not sin" (Ex. 20:20). Do not be afraid. Fear God. These two propositions do not contradict. To be afraid seems to give the connotation of being unaware of consequences or the future, but to fear something, in this case, means that you know well and good what the consequences are. God makes us fully aware what our consequences will be for our sin: death. This fear we are to have for God includes reverence, honor, and respect [Heb. "yir'ah" - awesome or terrifying thing (object causing fear), respect, reverence, piety]. Were it not for Christ, this consequence of eternal seperation from God would be a reality for us all.
All of this to say that modern pagans, and even many Christians, have spent their lives judiciously and fervently declawing God, and in turn His church. Shirking the sharps pains of persecution, ridding ourselves of church purity, emphasizing God's love much more than His other attributes, the list goes on and on. Christians have got to think iconoclastically! We must constantly be vigilant in destroying heretical (wrong-thinking) views of God, and in their place, inserting orthodox (right-thinking) views of God. The ever-present heresy of our day and age is that God is not to be feared. May we rid ourselves of this in order to see God in a more orthodox way, one that honors His omnipotence and wrath toward sin.
Remember, Aslan is not a tame Lion.
Ok, we should fear God, but isn't He "safe?" Don't we know everything there is to know about Him? Don't we have Him in our back pocket? I can say it no better than Mr. Beaver, so I'll let him make response:
"Safe?" said Mr. Beaver. "Don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaver. Love, in and of itself...is an oxymoron. True love does not exist without fear and trembling and honor, all of which are immortal things. Let's get back to a more robust and honorable view of our King. God is love, certainly, but He also commands fear and trembling from all creation (Phil. 2:12, Heb. 12:21).
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Scissors with Two Blades
We must never completely dismiss anything that has even a bit of truth to it. The answer to legalism is not anti-legalism, in the same way that the answer the intellectualism is not anti-intellectualism. We must dismiss the corruptions of legalism and intellectualism, but keep the truth found in them. Many evangelicals seem to toss out legalism completely, leaving only a hollow shell of a faith and refusing to learn and retain the truth it was founded on. Works and order and tradition are pivotal and necessary for the Christian. These elements do not save us, but neither does anything, or anyone I should say, besides for Christ. So is no creed but Christ the answer? May it never be! Without works and order and tradition, Christianity is free to become a religion of the times, and will sway like the tree in a fierce wind, giving way here and there, only to be uprooted in the end.
So, what is the answer to legalism? Why, it must be to place works as subject to God. Everything must be subject to God. If we do not choose this for ourselves, God will choose it for us in the end. But isn't faith more important than works? To quote C.S. Lewis, "Regarding the debate about faith and works: It’s like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most important." Without works, faith is rendered impotent, and without faith, works are rendered impotent. So are works necessary? Are you telling me that I must do good works in order to be saved? These are the wrong sorts of questions. Asking these questions is like asking to be given ways on how to become a saint. To ask for a method of becoming a saint is asking for something that is less than sainthood as a means of attaining sanctity. There are no shortcuts. But back to the issue: works and order and tradition and history are crucial, and Christianity will soon hold no water without them. Naturally if they become idols, we are to cast them out and purify them with fire. But once they are purified, we must bring them back, we must cling to them once more, and we must continue to do so or our religion is doomed to collapse. Christ pours truth from Himself. To accept Christ is to accept His faith and His works, as well as His laws, His history, His traditions, His mind, His will, those whom He blesses, and those whom he curses. Christ ceases to be Christ when we prune Him of these things. So the answer to legalism is not anti-legalism; the answer is to carry your cross and follow your Lord.
I end with a quote from Martin Luther:
So, what is the answer to legalism? Why, it must be to place works as subject to God. Everything must be subject to God. If we do not choose this for ourselves, God will choose it for us in the end. But isn't faith more important than works? To quote C.S. Lewis, "Regarding the debate about faith and works: It’s like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most important." Without works, faith is rendered impotent, and without faith, works are rendered impotent. So are works necessary? Are you telling me that I must do good works in order to be saved? These are the wrong sorts of questions. Asking these questions is like asking to be given ways on how to become a saint. To ask for a method of becoming a saint is asking for something that is less than sainthood as a means of attaining sanctity. There are no shortcuts. But back to the issue: works and order and tradition and history are crucial, and Christianity will soon hold no water without them. Naturally if they become idols, we are to cast them out and purify them with fire. But once they are purified, we must bring them back, we must cling to them once more, and we must continue to do so or our religion is doomed to collapse. Christ pours truth from Himself. To accept Christ is to accept His faith and His works, as well as His laws, His history, His traditions, His mind, His will, those whom He blesses, and those whom he curses. Christ ceases to be Christ when we prune Him of these things. So the answer to legalism is not anti-legalism; the answer is to carry your cross and follow your Lord.
I end with a quote from Martin Luther:
"O it is a living, busy active mighty thing, this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing good things incessantly. It does not ask whether good works are to be done, but before the question is asked, it has already done this, and is constantly doing them. Whoever does not do such works, however, is an unbeliever. He gropes and looks around for faith and good works, but knows neither what faith is nor what good works are. Yet he talks and talks, with many good words, about faith and good works."
Monday, December 31, 2007
No Place for Truth
I know, I stole my blog title from the book by David F. Wells, but I've been reading through his book, which is titled the same, and as many of you know it is very dense and rich with information. Here is a quote that has stood out in my mind the past weeks:
Now this statement must be understood in its context. Over the course of the 20th century, fundamentalism has been overridden by evangelicalism on a wide scale. The fundamentalists fought tooth and nail to uphold the wall between the church and the world. They thought this the best way to keep the church a holy and sanctified body. However, in the late 20th century, evangelicalism gained prominence over fundamentalism. This meant breaking down the wall of separation in many respects. This meant moving away from the narrow thinking of the fundamentalist's. We now widely live from and among this wave evangelicalism, this world-friendly Christianity. What the fundamentalist's fought so hard to repel, the evangelicals welcomed and continue to welcome with open arms. So, is the great sin compromise, or to be narrow? I say it is compromise.
So why do I say that the great sin is compromise? Something inescapable from Christianity is that it is an historic and traditionally-based religion, so when people want to do things as they haven't been done in the past, we would do well to examine and hold it up with what we know to be true. This isn't to say that we shouldn't sing new songs of worship or adopt new forms of ministry. The point is that we must always hold these things up to the guidelines of God's Word. Our best example of this is the church, for it is not a new thing to struggle with conforming to the culture. Christians have protected the church for hundreds of years from the culture, and we would do well to follow their lead. Now how does this compromise often guise itself in our day and age? postmodernism.
Postmodernism, which plagues many minds today in the church, is a way of thinking that discredits tradition, weakens history, and glorifies in relativity. It discredits tradition by relegating it contextual, it weakens history by sweeping it under the carpet, and it glorifies relativity by indulging in the latest fad and fashion. The postmodernist always looks for new ways to "do church," and will state that whatever "works" (this term itself is often ambiguous, but usually refers to the quantity and supposed interest of the congregants) is the optimum choice.
Here is a quote from J.P. Moreland that I have recently come across that shows the devastation of this worldview:
Feel free to post your thoughts.
Bonus: I met David Wells at a conference in SoCal last week! I got his signature in my copy of No Place for Truth, and a picture with him too!
The great sin in Fundamentalism is to compromise; the great sin in evangelicalism is to be narrow.
Now this statement must be understood in its context. Over the course of the 20th century, fundamentalism has been overridden by evangelicalism on a wide scale. The fundamentalists fought tooth and nail to uphold the wall between the church and the world. They thought this the best way to keep the church a holy and sanctified body. However, in the late 20th century, evangelicalism gained prominence over fundamentalism. This meant breaking down the wall of separation in many respects. This meant moving away from the narrow thinking of the fundamentalist's. We now widely live from and among this wave evangelicalism, this world-friendly Christianity. What the fundamentalist's fought so hard to repel, the evangelicals welcomed and continue to welcome with open arms. So, is the great sin compromise, or to be narrow? I say it is compromise.
So why do I say that the great sin is compromise? Something inescapable from Christianity is that it is an historic and traditionally-based religion, so when people want to do things as they haven't been done in the past, we would do well to examine and hold it up with what we know to be true. This isn't to say that we shouldn't sing new songs of worship or adopt new forms of ministry. The point is that we must always hold these things up to the guidelines of God's Word. Our best example of this is the church, for it is not a new thing to struggle with conforming to the culture. Christians have protected the church for hundreds of years from the culture, and we would do well to follow their lead. Now how does this compromise often guise itself in our day and age? postmodernism.
Postmodernism, which plagues many minds today in the church, is a way of thinking that discredits tradition, weakens history, and glorifies in relativity. It discredits tradition by relegating it contextual, it weakens history by sweeping it under the carpet, and it glorifies relativity by indulging in the latest fad and fashion. The postmodernist always looks for new ways to "do church," and will state that whatever "works" (this term itself is often ambiguous, but usually refers to the quantity and supposed interest of the congregants) is the optimum choice.
Here is a quote from J.P. Moreland that I have recently come across that shows the devastation of this worldview:
"Faced with such opposition and the pressure it brings, postmodernism is a form of intellectual pacifism that, at the end of the day, recommends backgammon while the barbarians are at the gate. It is the easy, cowardly way out that removes the pressure to engage alternative conceptual schemes, to be different, to risk ridicule, to take a stand outside the gate. But it is precisely as disciples of Christ, even more, as officers in his army, that the pacifist way out is simply not an option. However comforting it may be, postmodernism is the cure that kills the patient, the military strategy that concedes defeat before the first shot is fired, the ideology that undermines its own claim to allegiance. And it is an immoral, coward’s way out that is not worthy of a movement born out of the martyrs’ blood."
Feel free to post your thoughts.
Bonus: I met David Wells at a conference in SoCal last week! I got his signature in my copy of No Place for Truth, and a picture with him too!
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
New Bibles vs. New Commentaries
The Message 2.0 Remix! Extreme Teen Bible! Adventure Bible! Bride's Bible! There are so many different "Bibles" out there, and I started thinking about what my beef is with all these different versions. I did a search of different Bibles on cbd.com, and received an astounding 3,208 results! Why so many? Because the Bible is a potential hot-seller...
Then I got to thinking, why do people constantly feel the need to create not only new versions of the Bible, but guise them according to teen culture, middle-aged women culture, and everything in between? I think it's because they recognize that by going under the name Bible, not that they are deviating from it's intended message per se, but that it will help sell their version/packaging. They figure that we all take the Bible as authoritative, so my version/packaging will make its mark on my intended audience.
I think we need less of these versions and packagings of the Bible to be honest. Many of these end up being only one thing to one people, and that's not the message of Scripture. What's the alternative then? write a commentary. No need to claim the authority of Scripture, you're either a bad commentator or a good one. No potentially changing or weakening the meaning of the actual text, just your interpretation; because that's what it usually comes down to: the author in question's interpretation. By all means, I'm not saying that we need more commentaries, I'm only questioning how people choose to get their one-peopled messages across. If you really feel that what you want to say will be beneficial for a certain people, first examine your motives, then examine the necessity, then go write a commentary.
Then I got to thinking, why do people constantly feel the need to create not only new versions of the Bible, but guise them according to teen culture, middle-aged women culture, and everything in between? I think it's because they recognize that by going under the name Bible, not that they are deviating from it's intended message per se, but that it will help sell their version/packaging. They figure that we all take the Bible as authoritative, so my version/packaging will make its mark on my intended audience.
I think we need less of these versions and packagings of the Bible to be honest. Many of these end up being only one thing to one people, and that's not the message of Scripture. What's the alternative then? write a commentary. No need to claim the authority of Scripture, you're either a bad commentator or a good one. No potentially changing or weakening the meaning of the actual text, just your interpretation; because that's what it usually comes down to: the author in question's interpretation. By all means, I'm not saying that we need more commentaries, I'm only questioning how people choose to get their one-peopled messages across. If you really feel that what you want to say will be beneficial for a certain people, first examine your motives, then examine the necessity, then go write a commentary.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Back from TJ
As some of you may have known, I went to Tijuana this past week to help out a ministry by the name of La Roca. We aided in various work projects including serving at an orphanage, jail, rehabilitation center (a branch of the La Roca ministry), and some nearby towns.
Most noteworthy perhaps were the lessons that Mark Tannehill and myself were alotted to teach every morning to the group. We chose the general topic of the importance of understanding. The daily lessons were as follows: Monday - General Overview and the Necessity of Serving God with our Mind, Tuesday - Calling Ourselves Truth-seekers, Wednesday - The Weight of our Words, Thursday - Defining Clear Prayer, Friday - The Diciple's Call to Suffer, and lastly Saturday - Defining the Kingdom of Heaven. It was a blessing to be able to offer this study to the others in the group, and it was great being able to solidify my thoughts on many of these issues via a few friendly arguements with fellow team members.
Overall, the trip went very well. The team remained unified and we served our Lord in a practical way. Solo deo gloria.
Most noteworthy perhaps were the lessons that Mark Tannehill and myself were alotted to teach every morning to the group. We chose the general topic of the importance of understanding. The daily lessons were as follows: Monday - General Overview and the Necessity of Serving God with our Mind, Tuesday - Calling Ourselves Truth-seekers, Wednesday - The Weight of our Words, Thursday - Defining Clear Prayer, Friday - The Diciple's Call to Suffer, and lastly Saturday - Defining the Kingdom of Heaven. It was a blessing to be able to offer this study to the others in the group, and it was great being able to solidify my thoughts on many of these issues via a few friendly arguements with fellow team members.
Overall, the trip went very well. The team remained unified and we served our Lord in a practical way. Solo deo gloria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)